Queen of Chaos, the misadventures of Hillary Clinton

361 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
My next door neighbour mentally abuses her kids but that is way better than her twin who beats her kids. I am going to voter for her in the next PTA election because she is the only person who can win against the child beater.

No!  Don't vote!  That way neither of them will win.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I guess it depends on whether you think it is more of a moral affront to not vote than it is a moral affront to vote for evil even if it is the "lite" brand. Personally I will never knowingly vote for evil to prevent evil. Seems self defeating to me.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I guess it depends on whether you think it is more of a moral affront to not vote than it is a moral affront to vote for evil even if it is the "lite" brand. Personally I will never knowingly vote for evil to prevent evil. Seems self defeating to me.

So, would you vote for a party that supports Site C but opposes Transmountain, in order to stop a party that supports both? 

WWWTT

Misfit wrote:

Democrats don't tend to threaten abortion access and democrats tend to put in moderates on the Supreme Court. Democrats are war mongers but they are less so than the Republicans who revel in war and violence.

ill take a Democrat over a Republican any day.

Not so sure about that? Abortion is a very serious issue that I do not believe there can ever be a “one size fits all” kind of approach  

It’s also a famous wedge issue used by politicians 

Its enough for many voters to make a decision solely based on the candidates positions on abortion 

The problem with choosing the lesser of the two evils approach is a lie or a red herring  The real evil is the political system 

Im actually rooting for Hillary  Anything to justify the US political system is nothing more than a bunch of quaks having a group hug and holding hands!

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I guess it depends on whether you think it is more of a moral affront to not vote than it is a moral affront to vote for evil even if it is the "lite" brand. Personally I will never knowingly vote for evil to prevent evil. Seems self defeating to me.

So, would you vote for a party that supports Site C but opposes Transmountain, in order to stop a party that supports both? 

After the Site C decision I will never vote for the BC NDP again. I have voted for PR so I hope that we will not be faced with that kind of false dichotomy in the future.  I held my nose and voted for the NDP in the last election because the local candidate had a good spiel on indigenous rights and the support of the First Nations in  the riding and they ran on implementing a process to get to PR.  The Site C decision makes a mockery of the supposed commitment to UNDRIP and a new relationship with First Nations.

Besides for that if I followed the logic of the vote Dems to stop Rep I would have had to vote Lib to stop the Cons. We have had a third party in Canada because people like me were not prepared to vote for the lesser of evils or different coloured cats as it were.

NDPP

Michelle Obama On Her Bond With 'Beautiful, Funny, Kind, Sweet Man' George W Bush

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1063201825157980166

"Never thought that starting wars on lies and killing millions of people could make one 'beautiful, funny, kind, and sweet', but what do I know?"

Ghouls.

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

My next door neighbour mentally abuses her kids but that is way better than her twin who beats her kids. I am going to voter for her in the next PTA election because she is the only person who can win against the child beater.  The fact that it will empower every bully in the school system is a minor side effect. To really grasp some concepts I find it best to take it down to the personal level.

That school in your neighborhood sounds horribly dreadful! Are these the kinds of people who only have a chance of winning the PTA election?!?! What are the parents like at that school? Maybe Solomon could make the right decision on who to vote for?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR so you think that the NDP should not exist in Canada?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NDPP wrote:

So why vote for either?

On every level BELOW presidential politics, don't.  Until the Electoral College is abolished or reformed, it's futile to vote for a third-party presidential candidate, since nothing can ever be built through such a campaign.  Vote for other parties or progressive independents in races they could actually win, work for the implementation of PR in legislative and congressional voting, work to get Electoral votes distributed proportionately by state.  

Every third-party presidential campaign since maybe 1924-the year Lafollette ran as a Progressive and broke the 20% mark-has been a meaningless failure.  Nothing was left behind from the Henry Wallace, Eldridge Cleaver, Eugene McCarthy(in 1976), John Anderson, Ralph Nader or Jill Stein campaigns-nothing at all.

Other than on the presidential level, hell yes, DO challenge the duopoly.  

voice of the damned

After the Site C decision I will never vote for the BC NDP again. I have voted for PR so I hope that we will not be faced with that kind of false dichotomy in the future.  I held my nose and voted for the NDP in the last election because the local candidate had a good spiel on indigenous rights and the support of the First Nations in  the riding and they ran on implementing a process to get to PR.  The Site C decision makes a mockery of the supposed commitment to UNDRIP and a new relationship with First Nations.

Ah, I didn't realize that you had made that decision about the BC NDP.

Sincere kudos on your consistency. That said, if, as you state, you had to "hold your nose" to vote NDP before that, it might kind of indicate that you were, in fact, willing to accept a certain modicum of "evil" in your choice of party.

Pages